Looking for an answer from those supporting Trump’s proposed tariff war. If the purpose of Trump’s tariff is to “save jobs,” as he and the steel executives and the union leaders insist is the motive, should Trump, acting as a dictator, ban all automation in every industry that might cause a job loss? Should progress come to a halt because one politician decided it is his duty to save existing jobs? For example, should the restaurants in Trump’s hotels and resorts be required to remove all automatic dishwashers in order to save the jobs of humans that used to wash the dishes? If your answer is “no, progress should not be banned, automation is a good thing,” my question for you is what is the difference? If the principle behind the tariffs is to save jobs should that principle not also apply in every case? If the principle is to save existing jobs should not progress be brought to a screeching halt, immediately, and with no exceptions?
I’ll Ask The Question Again
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I think there have been two or three, and then there are those that think it’s not a big deal. I would like to hear their rationale, and I would especially like for them to answer my question.
Defense of said proposed dumbass idea could be reasonably seen as support of said tariffs and ensuing dumbass trade war. Historical evidence cited...”I don’t believe you” “Must be true”
Carry on
Its going to end up being part of a larger "deal" somehow or someway The good ole reliable "Trump Whistle" is blown and the media, RINO's, Liberals and others all go ape shit.
I personally think tariffs are not productive, but in a larger context the willingness to talk about them, potentially implement them and use them as a starting point for negotiations for something larger/more encompassing seems pretty sensible.
I personally think tariffs are not productive, but in a larger context the willingness to talk about them, potentially implement them and use them as a starting point for negotiations for something larger/more encompassing seems pretty sensible.
1. I think it is a negotiating tactic.
2. I don’t think it’s near a big deal as many are making it out to be. We saw even a greater negative reaction over tax cuts because the media want Trump to fail.
3. We do get screwed in trade policy. We import without tariffs and then allow other countries to place tariffs on our products and just say thank you sir.
I hate tariffs but we didn’t start a trade war, other countries did and it looks like we may just be jumping into it.
God you are a fvcking moron. Because I disagree with your stated #facts does not mean I support tariffs. Not believing tariffs are a huge deal doesn’t mean I think they are good.
No wonder you are unemployable.
Disagreeing with #facts to appease your Trumpet sensibilities is defense of said Trump trade willful ignorance.
So who’s the moron here? Haha...you can’t even #win when you backpedal.
Carry on
While I do not support tariffs, there is the response that automation ultimately leads to more, higher paying jobs. So attempting to tie the two together is a logically flawed argument IMO.
Did you see today's CNBC headline. I think I fall in the category that this is not a big deal, but suddenly if NAFTA is renegotiated, Trump is indicating that he might cancel the tariffs. Sounds like a negotiator using all the tools at his disposal to get the trade agreements he's looking for. Isn't that exactly what we want our President and commerce team to do? You think Walmart became Walmart by ceding its size and economic advantage to each of its trading partners? That's exactly what the US has been doing for years under our prior presidents (both sides) in regards to international trade agreements, and this at least looks like he's trying to rectify that. Look, I agree that tariffs (particularly wide-spread use of them) are bad for the economy. But so are poorly negotiated trade deals which lead to massive trade imbalances and international wealth transfers (such as we've seen for the past 20 years). So I'm not against using one as a tool to fix the other.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/05/tru...f-new-and-fair-nafta-agreement-is-signed.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/05/tru...f-new-and-fair-nafta-agreement-is-signed.html
It’s one hell of a negotiating tactic! Trump’s telling the rest of the world he will harm the consumers in his own country if it doesn’t do what he says.
1. This has the potential to become a very big deal. It is in no way similar to the battle over the tax reform. These tariffs are being denounced from every corner, not just the Trump haters. Even many of those in his own administration are apoplectic. This is not a partisan divide.
3. In what way have we been screwed by the trade agreements? I have argued before that tariffs are nothing more than taxes placed on the consumers of the countries being “protected.” Tariffs hurt the local population much more than the foreign one. How have you personally been damaged by European tariffs? Do you even know what those tariffs are? I don’t, and I don’t know how I’ve been screwed by the trade agreements. (As an aside, let me be clear that I am opposed to ANY trade agreement negotiated by government agents. If some guy in China has a product he’s willing to sell me at a price I find to be reasonable, I argue the trade ain’t nobody’s business but me and the Chinese guy.)
4. If the tariffs are necessary to save jobs, should Trump ban all automation in every industry to save the jobs that automation makes obsolete? If not, why not?
Sacrificing American jobs and starting trade wars aren’t exactly strong bargaining chips for negotiation, given recent historical empirical evidence. And there are plenty on Trump’s own economic team who think he’s an idiot for this, Gary Cohn for starters.
And did he tell his buddy Carl Icahn weeks ago he was gonna do it too? It must’ve been some strange coincidence he offloaded 30 million in steel stock. Weird. Strange. Had to be coincidental.
And did he tell his buddy Carl Icahn weeks ago he was gonna do it too? It must’ve been some strange coincidence he offloaded 30 million in steel stock. Weird. Strange. Had to be coincidental.
I'll defend Trump. How have all these trade deals worked out for steel and aluminum? It would be one thing if the other countries were playing by the same rules as us but they dump steel and aluminum at a loss for the express purpose of killing the US production.
Two reasons, first is they want a monopoly on those markets and once they get it you can be assured prices will skyrocket and second it's a national security issue. If conflict breaks out it would be critical for the USA to be able to have large supplies of steel and aluminum, no production capability would be major problem in a prolonged conflict with a world power such as China.
Personally I'm an America first guy, this idea that we have unfettered world trade sometimes goes against our self interest. Why not take it on a case by case basis and do what's in our own best interest? I can guarantee China and Russia don't make decisions based on what's in the world's best interest at their expense.
Two reasons, first is they want a monopoly on those markets and once they get it you can be assured prices will skyrocket and second it's a national security issue. If conflict breaks out it would be critical for the USA to be able to have large supplies of steel and aluminum, no production capability would be major problem in a prolonged conflict with a world power such as China.
Personally I'm an America first guy, this idea that we have unfettered world trade sometimes goes against our self interest. Why not take it on a case by case basis and do what's in our own best interest? I can guarantee China and Russia don't make decisions based on what's in the world's best interest at their expense.
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-tariffs-2010-9
Should we go through and parse out the previous 12,000 US tariffs @Ponca Dan and have you show us how they have lead to such doom and gloom for the greatest economy in the world?
Why this is a trump attack when everyone does this is again a symptom of trump derangement syndrome.
@JimmyBob I know the corset tariff doesn’t affect you because your girls didn’t wear them.
Should we go through and parse out the previous 12,000 US tariffs @Ponca Dan and have you show us how they have lead to such doom and gloom for the greatest economy in the world?
Why this is a trump attack when everyone does this is again a symptom of trump derangement syndrome.
@JimmyBob I know the corset tariff doesn’t affect you because your girls didn’t wear them.
I’ll ask you the same question: what has been unfair about the trade deals? In what way have you been damaged by them? Please note: I’m asking out of pure curiosity. I have no knowledge or understanding of any segment of any trade deal. You apparently do. So would you please enlighten me?
If negotiations break down on NAFTA and Trump unilaterally slaps tariffs on Canadian steel in order to save jobs, should he also ban all automation in every industry in order to save those existing jobs? Is it the government’s duty to save jobs? If so, should the President declare that all technical progress of the last number of years must be eliminated and all jobs that have been lost to such innovation must be restored? If not, why not?
And other industries which buy steel tanked...the Nasdaq and S&P fell more than 1 percent Thursday. I know seeing the unintended consequences isn’t your strength on here, so no surprise this is your response. Too easy.
And the rest of the market fell drastically. I posted a link from Mark Perry on this very subject a few days ago. I don’t remember the numbers but steel stocks soared by several hundred million dollars while the rest of the market plummeted by a few billion. In fact the rumor was that Trump was surprised by the reaction on the stock market and had decided to rescind his tariff threat if the market continued to decline.
Last edited:
Any economist worth his salt will tell you that any tariff has a negative impact on the country imposing it. So, yes, all 12,000 tariffs should be abolished and our economy would be much better off.
This is a Trump attack because he has decided to impose tariffs in spite of virtually every economist from every side of the partisan divide, including those within his own administration. He is going to use a section of the trade agreements, military necessity, even though his own Secretary of Defense says it is not a military concern. He is acting like a tyrant, a dictator in this instance, and that should be a concern for every one of us.
1) Never called it a partisan divide. In fact, I'd argue I'd be more supportive of tariffs that were based on finished products rather than raw materials. I don't like Steel and Aluminum tariffs as they penalize the producers of good jobs who use those materials to create other items. I'd be a stronger supporter of finished goods (like Washing Machines & such) where the importation directly competes and eliminates good US jobs.
3) How many US jobs were shipped to Mexico by the auto industry 3 weeks after NAFTA was signed? You can't tell me that NAFTA didn't directly screw US workers out of GOOD jobs. As for being harmed by international tariffs, I say we have been. If it weren't for European tariffs, how many more Fords would there be in France? How many Chevy's would we sell in Germany. How many solid middle-class jobs are eliminated due to these international tariffs. Those countries institute tariffs to protect their own crappy manufacturers who are subject to absurd government regulations and taxes (beyond what even ours are) so as to protect its workers. Yet when we look at doing similar, WE are starting a trade war. But to answer your statement, yes, American's are impacted by foreign tariffs.
4) Automation is not equal to tariffs, although I have real concerns on automation as well. For one, automation allows for real gains in productivity. Also, automation creates alternate jobs in parallel to those it replaces, tariffs don't, whether that's robotics repair, computer service, programmers, etc...
Since 1991, the production of US steel has risen by nearly 10%. In that same period of time, some 48,000+ US steel jobs have disappeared.
Steel, like coal, auto manufacturing and so many other industries have been able to lay off massive amounts of people, replacing them with automation and the fact is those jobs are never coming back. People who were formerly employed in those industries need to come to grips with that and look to move to places where there are jobs, or participate in retraining programs to qualify for different jobs. Because if you're sitting in WV, PA or other places where steel and coal were once king, the only growth industry that pays well seems to be selling meth and opioids. (I would toss in the funeral home industry as well, IF their clients have $ to pay them.)
Last edited:
Just so we are clear is every president who has implemented a tariff a tyrannical
Dictator?
I have argued on this board repeatedly that it does not matter what other countries do. Dump all the steel on us you want! Lower those prices. Trump and his supporters on this topic talk about every player in the equation but one, the most important one, the consumer. The consumer gets to be the pawn in Trump’s realpolitik.
Your concern about China developing a monopoly is unfounded. Monopolies can only exist in one country, and then only if the government in that country is used to keep competition out. Monopolies cannot exist if even one country practices free markets. If China assumes it can jack up prices it will discover countless competitors suddenly snapping at their heels. Even if they wound up being the only country in the whole world, which can’t happen, they will still be restricted by what is known as “potential competition.” Competition is the great leveler,
Last, I will repeat what I have said earlier. Countries that trade with each other do not fight each other. It is way too costly to them. Free markets - even when only one entity practices it - are harbingers of peace.
In a manner of speaking, yes. But Presidents in the past have followed specific guidelines that have been internationally agreed upon. If country A appears to be dumping a product in country B, country B makes a case before a tribunal of sorts. Only if the tribunal agrees does the President then impose a tariff. Bush imposed a tariff on Chinese steel and when the governing body told him to stop he immediately stopped it. Trump is attempting to bypass those rules by declaring a military emergency when there is none. He is opening a Pandora’s Box, a precedent that other countries could then apply to us. An international trade war is highly likely if he pursues this avenue, and it could be very damaging economically to the world. That’s why so many people from both sides of the aisle are hyperventilating. This could get very ugly very quickly. Trump doesn’t seem to understand that he is stepping into a large pile of poo.
Tariffs in a totally free market environment would almost always be detrimental. However, when one country imbalances the playing field with government subsidization of an industry or even government processed industry espionage - then I would consider using a tariff as a way to balance the free market environment.
What is the window for very ugly very quickly? I want to revisit to see if hyperventilating was one more in an endless list of things trump has done to end the world. To be fair we might not survive the trump tax cut apocalypse but if we do we can see if this tariff was the one out of the 12,000 that broke the camels back.
All this chatter and still my questions remain unanswered. Is it the duty of the government to save jobs? If yes should the government ban all automation, all progress of the last hundred years and force the country back into the late 19th Century in the name of restoring all the jobs that have been lost to innovation? If your answer is no, the government shouldn’t do that, I ask you why? If the government should impose tariffs in the name of saving jobs, why should it not also ban innovation and progress for the same reason?
Last edited:
Yes
No
Cause automation is helpful and if we banned it we would be left in the dust of other countries
You just asked if the government should ban progress? What would that look like? Get a grip hippy.
We are competing against a state controlled communist/capitalist totalitarian China. Our moves cannot and will not live in your ideals. Everything is going to be a hybrid and all of us need to hang on to as many free market principals as we can but at what cost?
I don’t have a clue what will happen with this specific tariff. I do know “economists expect” or “economists predict” is as reliable as watching an Oklahoma Weather man so forgive me if I’m not falling out of bed on yet another alarm being sounded.
I don’t have a clue what will happen with this specific tariff. I do know “economists expect” or “economists predict” is as reliable as watching an Oklahoma Weather man so forgive me if I’m not falling out of bed on yet another alarm being sounded.
No, no, Ostatechi! Tariffs are a tax on your own people! Tariffs hurt the people they are supposed to protect. Tariffs raise prices on the consumer and reduce the options that are available to the consumer. All for the benefit of a well connected industry. When England imposes a tariff on American automobiles, for example, what it is doing is raising the price an English citizen has to pay in order to buy one. And it allows the English auto makers to raise their prices because the competition has been weakened. The English consumer is the loser. If the American government responds in kind all it is doing is making American consumers pay higher prices for English cars, and frees up American auto makers to raise prices because they have less competition. Tariffs are bad for the consumers.
Last edited:
There is currently a 32% tariff on brooms. How much is a broom going to set you back at the Walmarts?
35% tariff on canned tuna. 2/1.00$ at the local piggly wiggly and that’s after they filter out the dolphin.
No, it isn't the federal government's role to 'save jobs'.
However it is the federal governments role to manage our relationships with foreign governments. Part of that relationships is trying to influence them to play by a standard set of rules. Imposing tariffs is a tool to help guide foreign countries to change their stances.
I'm okay with that.
For example, the Chinese government hacks an insulation manufacturer, steals their intellectual property on how that create their insulation, then build a plant in China and tries to sell it back to America at a discounted rate since they didn't have to do the R&D. I'd fully support a tariff or even ban of that import.
Harry, you’re a hoot! I haven’t been called a hippie since I was one on the beaches at Waikiki in the early 70’s. Those were the days!
What I’m trying to explain to you is free markets work even if only one country practices it. Tariffs hamper the natural workings of free markets. A country that practices capitalism can never be left in the dust by a country that has a command economy. It is the duty of government, if we’re going to be saddled with one, to preserve liberty. That’s the only thing it should be charged with doing. It is NOT the duty of government to preserve existing jobs. If it was we would still be living in the days of aristocracy or worse.
Long term view dude. Markets move on daily news. It’s also up bigly so any sort of “shock” will lead to more profit taking. Of course higher steel will lead to pass through costs (funny how liberals now believe this, but higher minimum wage won’t cause the same thing).
Excellent point. Intellectual property is a tricky subject, one I am not qualified to expound upon.
It’s not just that. American manufactures outsource manufacturing to China and the IP gets stolen, especially for low tech purely mechanical type items.
Ponca you are living in a world of idealism. In a perfect world the free market would work everything out and consumers and business's would all benefit.
What you don't factor in is China and others, using business and trade as a weapon to achieve their goal of world domination. If you allow China to monopolize critical markets and finances then the world will be powerless when they force their totalitarian ways on everyone else.
Liberals basically live in an idealistic world also, yes in theory and on paper socialism as many appealing aspects but in the real world human nature will never let it happen. Human nature is to dominate, achieve and self preservation. That is incompatible with the true socialist agenda.
What you don't factor in is China and others, using business and trade as a weapon to achieve their goal of world domination. If you allow China to monopolize critical markets and finances then the world will be powerless when they force their totalitarian ways on everyone else.
Liberals basically live in an idealistic world also, yes in theory and on paper socialism as many appealing aspects but in the real world human nature will never let it happen. Human nature is to dominate, achieve and self preservation. That is incompatible with the true socialist agenda.
